role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 4, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-May-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 May 2004 Mardi 4 mai 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN PARRY SOUND

VAISAKHI

THALASSEMIA

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

EDUCATION WEEK

WATER QUALITY

SCHIZOPHRENIA

BRECHIN PUBLIC SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

SCHOOL CLOSURES

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

ROAD SAFETY

TRAFFIC CONTROL

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TENANTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY 407

FAMILY FARMS

FISH HATCHERIES

EDUCATION

AMBULANCE SERVICE

TOBACCO GROWERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 407

MINIMUM WAGE

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

TAXATION

HIGHWAY 407

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

HOSPITALS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY 407

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

TAXATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN PARRY SOUND

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to bring your attention to some of the great events taking place this summer in the beautiful

town of Parry Sound. Parry Sound, located in Georgian Bay Country, is one of Ontario's prime tourist destinations, and for anyone in the area this summer there will be no lack of great things to

do.

From July 16 to August 8, Parry Sound will be celebrating its 25th year as host of the Festival of the Sound. A world-class music festival, the Festival of the

Sound celebrates the connection between the beauty of the music of some of the world's greatest composers and the beauty of Georgian Bay Country, and features performances by artists from all over

the world. This year's festival will feature works performed by Anton Kuerti, Pinchas Zuckerman, the Emperor String Quartet and the Elmer Iseler Singers, among many others. The performances will

take place in the Charles W. Stockey Festival Performance Hall, which has only been open since last year's festival and has already garnered the praises of performers and listeners alike.

Another event taking place in Parry Sound this summer is the RBC Dragon Boat Festival. It will take place on June 18 and 19 and will bring out people of all ages

and all abilities to participate and raise money for the Rotary Club of Parry Sound and the West Parry Sound Health Centre. Last year's festival was a massive success, and this year is sure to

build on those past successes.

These are just some of the great events taking place in Parry Sound, in Georgian Bay Country, over the summer. I would encourage everyone to visit Georgian Bay

Country to participate in these events yourself.

VAISAKHI

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): On April 24, I had the opportunity to participate in the Peterborough Sikh community's Vaisakhi celebration.

Vaisakhi has a special significance for Sikhs. It celebrates the day in 1699 when Guru Gobind Singh gave the authority of the Sikhs to the Guru Granth Sahib -- the Sikh scripture -- and created the

order of Khalsa, the brotherhood of the pure.

To begin the celebration, participants entered the room with their heads covered and shoes removed. Everyone bowed in front of the holy book of Guru Granth Sahib

before sitting down on the floor. At that point, Guru Granth Sahib was placed on a higher platform facing the congregation.

The celebration consisted of a religious service, which included hymns from Guru Granth Sahib, followed by Langar, the sharing of a vegetarian meal.

The members of Peterborough's Sikh community were wonderful, welcoming hosts. I thank them for the invitation to participate in this very important religious

celebration.

In my role as MPP I'm grateful to have the opportunity to participate in a wide array of cultural events within my riding. I look forward to participating in

next year's Vaisakhi celebration.

Ontario is a multicultural province. I'm proud to recognize May 5 -- tomorrow -- as South Asian Arrival Day. We are fortunate to have such a diversification of

peoples, all contributing to the great fabric which is our province, Ontario.

THALASSEMIA

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): It is with great pleasure that I speak today to recognize International Thalassemia Day. Saturday,

May 8, 2004, is the 10th anniversary of this day. Thalassemia is a form of inherited anemia and affects about 300 children and adults in Ontario.

The Thalassemia Foundation of Canada was established in 1982 to raise awareness of thalassemia and to advocate for proper care and funding. Comprehensive care

for patients under 18 years of age has been provided at the Hospital for Sick Children since 1986, and the Toronto General Hospital has provided care for adults. Unfortunately, although the number

of children who have survived into adulthood has increased, the program at the TGH has not expanded to meet this need. The program has been restricted to 99 adult patients since the late 1990s.

Currently, there are 35 adult patients "stuck" at the Hospital for Sick Children, and this number will increase to 60 by the end of next year. They continue to

receive blood transfusions but not emergency or in-patient care. This poses serious health risks. The devastating effects of underfunding this program must be addressed. I urge the government to do

so.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thousands of Canadians are adversely affected by unfair credit reporting practices which heavily favour the

banking sector over consumers. Here are some examples:

First, did you know that as few as two or three applications for credit per month may lower your credit score by 10% or more? The likely consequence is that you

may be penalized and unable to obtain favourable interest rates. We must make sure that applications for credit do not affect the creditworthiness of our citizens.

Second, as reported by the Globe and Mail in early March, there was a massive identity theft from the largest consumer reporting agency in the country, Equifax

Canada. According to Equifax's own admission, the theft was committed by their own clients. This crime could be prevented by licensing consumer reporting agencies' clients. If we license hot dog

vendors, we surely should license companies and persons receiving the most sensitive, private information from our citizens.

Third, consumer reporting agencies are in breach of the Consumer Reporting Act pertaining to full disclosure. Reports furnished to credit granters contain

information that is not included in the reports furnished to consumers upon their requests, thereby leaving consumers in the dark by not furnishing narrative comments such as "inquiry alert," "too

many inquiries" and other comments. Even though the act stipulates that a true copy of the report furnished to credit granters must be furnished to the consumer upon request, consumer reporting

agencies are breaching the act by ignoring its provisions and furnishing consumers only with partial reports.

We must, as soon as possible, have a thorough look at our outdated Consumer Reporting Act in order to reduce the negative impact on our citizens.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There is much loud discussion. Could I just ask that you be a little quieter on the floor.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre):

Schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics are the only safety net for people who medically need physiotherapy but can't

afford it or don't have private insurance. They've been doing it successfully for 40 years in Ontario. There are six million treatments delivered to Ontarians each year, covering the majority of

the province, and 70% of

schedule 5 physiotherapy patients are senior citizens who need physiotherapy to stay mobile, active, in the community and out of costly hospitals. Most importantly,

physiotherapy keeps them happy, alive and well.

Currently, and it's been this way for a long time, the cost to the health care system is only $12.20 per treatment when delivered by a

schedule 5 clinic. A

similar treatment delivered in a hospital or CCAC is at least four times more expensive.

A week ago I met with Mathews Kulanjipurakal, a health professional, a physiotherapist -- in fact, the operator of a physiotherapy rehabilitation centre on

Vaughan Road in Welland. He impressed upon me the important role that he and other physiotherapists in similar centres and clinics --

schedule 5 physiotherapists -- play in the health care of our

community. He impressed on me the fact that they've been performing these procedures for $12.20 per procedure for a number of years, without any pay increase, and that they are very concerned about

the prospect of having the service being delisted by this government in the next budget. We call upon this government to ensure that these physiotherapists continue to treat our constituents.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): This week we are celebrating Education Week, and with it an opportunity for our government to reassert its

commitment to public education and thank Ontario's teachers for their ongoing commitment to educating our children.

It is also important this week that we look back on how our education system was managed so that we ensure that future decisions chart a different course with

our education partners and better serve the interests of the youth of this province.

Before having the privilege of serving here, I taught in a secondary school for the Algoma District School Board and worked for the Ontario Secondary School

Teachers' Federation. I witnessed first-hand the consequences of the past government's neglect for our public education system. It is no surprise that the number of children attending private

schools in Ontario has increased by 40%, and that 50% of grade 9 students will either not finish high school or choose not to pursue a post-secondary education.

We promised the people of Ontario that we would do our best to reverse this downward trend, and our government is standing by that commitment. On April 22, our

Premier announced that action to ensure high literacy and numeracy skills by age 12 was our first priority. To ensure that we achieve our goals, we will begin this fall by reducing class sizes in

junior kindergarten to grade 3, by placing lead teachers specially trained in literacy and numeracy in every elementary school and by establishing a provincial literacy and numeracy secretariat to

coordinate our efforts.

We want the improvement of our public education system to be the centrepiece of this government's mandate. I would like to begin celebrating Education Week by

reassuring Ontario's teachers, education workers, parents and children that improving this province's public education system is our top priority.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Both the previous Conservative government and the current government pledged to implement all the

recommendations contained in Justice O'Connor's report from the Walkerton inquiry. Creation of the Safe Drinking Water Act was a direct result of this commitment -- as the Ottawa Citizen put it,

the sledgehammer that kills the flea. The ultimate goal of the act is to ensure that all drinking water in Ontario is guaranteed safe and that the source water is fully protected.

Environment Minister Dombrowsky has stated the obvious: There are flaws in the legislation that need to be fixed. But to date, while campgrounds are closing and

churches, restaurants, children's groups and many others are under threat, the minister seems paralyzed, unable or unwilling to address this looming crisis.

Justice O'Connor's recommendations seem to be based on the premise that all drinking water in the province is either unsafe or will be unsafe in the near future.

The requirements contained in the new regulations follow from this premise. There is no doubt that a system of conscientious testing needed to be implemented. However, is it necessary that

expensive water treatment systems be required when testing indicates water supplies meet every provincial standard? Shouldn't the requirement for treatment systems occur when tests indicate a

deterioration of water quality? Fixing problems that don't exist does not earn public credibility, nor does forcing community facilities to close make sense when water quality problems do not

exist.

Minister Dombrowsky, you've had almost seven months. Stop the blame game; get on with the job.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. Present in the gallery are representatives from the Schizophrenia

Society of Ontario. The society provides support, education and advocacy on behalf of families and people affected by schizophrenia. Two weeks ago, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor hosted an

event here at Queen's Park to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the society and to kick off a series of events.

Schizophrenia is a serious treatable brain disease affecting one in 100 people over their lifetime. It generally strikes young people in their late teens or

early 20s. It is in fact referred to as youth's greatest disabler. Over the past few years, new hope has emerged, however, for these young individuals. With access to newer medications, which

represent the cornerstone of treatment, and earlier intervention, people with schizophrenia do in fact recover.

A schizophrenia society scholarship is now available, providing financial assistance to people returning to school. In the gallery we have an individual, for

example, who is pursuing a degree at the Ontario College of Art and Design, all the while dealing with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. We've received 30 applications this year, a testimony to how

well people can recover.

A number of dedicated volunteers and board members are here. I know, Speaker, that you, along with all members of this House, will salute the individuals who

suffer with this disease and the noble individuals who help them cope.

BRECHIN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I know this is the beginning of Education Week, and I'm very honoured today and very pleased that the grade 5

class of Ms McNeil and some parents are here. They're from Brechin Public School out in the eastern part of my riding. I really want to welcome them here, and I want the House to give them a warm

round of applause.

Quite frankly, I wasn't to do this statement today, Mr Speaker; it was to be Mr Baird's. He missed coming in, so I wanted to take a moment and say that we asked

a question yesterday to the Minister of Education on a very important issue that involves the lives of a lot of the young people here from Brechin Public School: the fact that there's a dispute

between two school boards, the Trillium Lakelands District School Board and the Simcoe County District School Board, over where these young people may in fact attend school in the future. For many

generations, the people from Carden and Dalton townships -- Ms Laurie Scott is the member for that particular area, Victoria-Haliburton-Brock. For many generations, the parents and grandparents of

these young people have actually attended Simcoe county schools, and now there's a dispute about moving them to Trillium Lakelands in the future.

Quite frankly, I was pleased that the minister responded yesterday. We're working very hard -- the parents' groups, myself, Ms Scott and now the Minister of

Education -- to try to resolve this issue. I hope that for the sake of putting students first in the province of Ontario, we can find a resolution so that these young people can attend the school

of their choice in the future.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

Mr Takhar moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to enhance the safety of children and youth on Ontario's roads / Projet de loi 73, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des

enfants et des jeunes sur les routes de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Takhar?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I will defer my statement until ministerial statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I consider it a great honour and a privilege to rise in the House today to introduce

legislation and to give details of a number of proposed regulatory initiatives to protect our children and youth on Ontario's roads.

This package of safety measures, if passed, will save lives. It is another example of our government's commitment to build safe and strong communities.

The McGuinty government is committed to improving Ontario's road safety record and to remaining one of the three safest jurisdictions in North America. We are

especially committed to the safety of our children and youth on our roads. Auto crashes are the leading cause of death and injury for children and youth. Nearly one in five deaths on our roads is a

young person 19 or under. Our government wants to change that.

This legislation I am introducing today provides a three-pronged approach to deal with the critical safety issues that affect our children and youth. If passed,

these measures would deliver improved use of child car seats, greater school bus safety and a stronger graduated licensing system. I am very grateful to Pat Hoy, MPP for Chatham-Kent-Essex, who has

campaigned tirelessly to improve school bus safety. This bill is a credit to his determination.

We have two families that lost a child in school bus collisions here with us today. I would like to thank them for taking time from work and travelling to be

with us today. The legislation I am introducing today, if passed, would help prevent this tragedy from happening to more Ontario families.

Today our government intends to build on existing school bus safety. A recent transportation survey found that one third of the school bus drivers sampled

observed at least one incident of illegal passing each day. We want to build on existing school bus safety by introducing legislation that would allow charges to be laid against the owner of a

vehicle that is reported to have illegally passed a school bus. In addition, we would develop regulations to ensure that drivers are constantly reminded of the seriousness of the offence. Our plan

is to place warning signs on the back of every school bus in the province.

We are also proposing to adopt improved standards for new school buses. In practice, this would include safety crossing arms to prevent children from walking

into the bus driver's blind spot at the front of the bus, more emergency exit windows on the larger buses, and improved mirrors to reduce the bus driver's blind spots.

The second part of our proposal consists of measures to protect the youngest and most vulnerable people in our society: infants, toddlers and primary grade

children. Let me outline the facts. Car crashes are the leading cause of death and injury for children and youth. An unrestrained child in a 50 kilometre per hour crash would suffer the same

consequences as a child dropped from a third-storey window. We can help prevent this. A child car seat can reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury by as much as 75%. That is why I propose

strengthening the authority in the Highway Traffic Act that governs the use of child car seats.

If this bill is passed, we intend to put regulations in place to better protect children in motor vehicles. This would include adding demerit points to the

penalty facing drivers who fail to follow infant and toddler car seat requirements.

If this bill is passed, we would also extend the legal obligation for drivers to use forward-facing child car seats for toddlers. Under the current legislation,

this only applies to parents and legal guardians. We would extend this obligation to other caregivers as well.

It is a sad fact that children using seat belts instead of booster seats are three and a half times more likely to suffer significant injury, and four times more

likely to suffer head injury. That is why we also intend to make booster seats mandatory.

Finally, we plan to further protect our young teenaged drivers with this proposed legislation. Our graduated licensing system has been a great success in

reducing death and injury among novice drivers.

But we can do more. Ontario research shows that new teenage drivers are almost three times more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious collision when they

are carrying teenage passengers. In fact, research shows the more teenage passengers, the higher the risk. To date, 31 jurisdictions in Canada and the US have some form of teenage passenger

restriction in effect.

Like these jurisdictions, we want to protect our young drivers. That's why we want to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve the graduated licensing system.

If passed, this measure would allow for regulations that would protect our youth by restricting the number of young passengers a driver aged 19 and under can carry during and after their first six

months in the G2 level. These restrictions would not apply if the G2 driver, aged 19 and under, is with an experienced driver in the front seat. In addition, family members would be exempt from

this restriction, regardless of age.

This is a measured and reasonable response that recognizes the mobility needs of all Ontarians. The proposed restriction is supported by sound research data

and best practices in other jurisdictions. The measures I have proposed are about protecting our children and youth from death and injury, and these measures are supported by health care

professionals, police services, road safety groups and parents from across the province.

In conclusion, let me state that this bill, if passed, will save lives. It is one more step in this government's commitment to improve our already impressive

road safety record. We owe it to our children to take this action. I want to take this opportunity to invite my legislative colleagues on both sides of the House to support these new initiatives to

protect our children and youth on Ontario roads. This is the right thing to do.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Transportation's remarks. I will say at the outset that no government

has been more concerned and done more in Ontario for safety on our roads than the previous government. As you will know, over eight and a half years, it was our government that introduced some of

the toughest regulations and legislation relating to such things as drunk driving.

We had the opportunity to implement some of the most important safety regulations relating to truck safety in the province, among a number of other issues. In

fact, in 1995, Ontario ranked sixth in the world for road safety. In 2001, we had the opportunity and the great pride to be rated first in North America, as having the safest roads in North

America.

With that as background, I want to speak to the legislation that's being introduced today. First let me say that Pat Hoy should have been the one given the

opportunity to introduce this legislation. The reason I say that is I think it's fair for us to acknowledge the work of the honourable member on the important issue of bus safety.

I also want to extend condolences to the families represented here who lost a child as the result of a bus accident.

What we want to do today is be fair with regard to the legislation that is being proposed. There are some issues we can certainly support relative to some of

the initiatives taken around improving standards within buses themselves, warning signals and so on that are incorporated in the legislation. We support that.

But let me be very clear that what we have significant concern about is the fact that we're once again into a cash grab of taxing, up to $2,000, not the

individual who is responsible for the behaviour of driving irresponsibly but the owner of the car, which could be totally unrelated to the actions within the vehicle. I suggest it's simply another

cash grab on the part of this government.

Let me also speak to the issue of booster seats. This government wants to have children eight years of age --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): When the statement was made by the Minister of Transportation, the opposition listened very well, and I would

like the same respect to be given to the member who is responding.

The member from Oak Ridges.

Mr Klees: Thank you. It's quite rude, actually, on the part of members of the government that is proposing the legislation. I expect they

would want to listen.

I'm suggesting they're making a major mistake with regard to their legislation as it relates to booster seats. You have failed to recognize the practicality of

our communities. What they have done with this legislation -- they're making it absolutely impossible. First of all, they're imposing a cost of $100 a booster seat on people in this province who

can probably least afford it. What's that all about? What happens to being able to pick up children in a rainstorm or a snowstorm, and when you're picking up your own child, having three or four of

the neighbours' kids come into the car, or taking them to a baseball game or a hockey game?

This minister has absolutely ignored the practical way people live in this province. Safety regulations, yes, but let's put some thought into the practicality

of the legislation you bring forward. This will never wash. It's as bad as your fat tax, Minister. You haven't thought about it. It's all smoke and mirrors.

What we want to do is support you. I would want to support a piece of legislation that truly affects safety issues. Minister, wake up. This will never work.

What you're doing here is that you're going to sell a lot of booster seats, and that's all you're going to do. You'll be getting a lot of calls from people in your riding and across the province

saying, "Get reasonable."

Let's be serious about this: children eight years of age in a booster seat? Where are you? What are you dreaming of? This is not about safety; it's about

irresponsible legislation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats are pleased to join in any effort to create safer highways and prevent highway deaths and

highway injuries. Indeed, New Democrats are proud of the graduated licensing system introduced by the New Democrats here at Queen's Park over a decade ago. It surely has been one of the single most

effective highway safety initiatives undertaken in this province in decades.

Having said that, I want to comment on a number of areas of this legislation.

It's ironic that the government addresses much-needed Highway Traffic Act amendments around the safety of children in school buses today in the context of the

revelation earlier today that yet 40 more schools are going to be closed in Ontario. Closing 40 schools means more children on school buses, and it means more children who literally spend more time

on their bus to and from their classroom than they do in the classroom itself. In Niagara region alone, as a result of school closures over the course of the last seven and eight years, we've seen

a tremendous growth of the youngest of kids being bused to and from schools and literally, as I say, spending more time on their buses than they do in their classrooms.

I'm not doubting this government's commitment to the school bus safety issue. Quite frankly, New Democrats support the concept of vicarious liability. It's not

novel; it's certainly precedented in the Highway Traffic Act. But I'm saying the irony in the context of today's revelation is obvious as well.

I have some concern about the minister's expression about being committed to tough, effective legislation when I take a look at particularly his amendment to

subsection 7(12), where the government is restricting the penalties that can be imposed upon the convicted person who is in default of a fine to a non-renewal of permit only for that permit on the

vehicle that was actually involved in the offence. In fact, the government is making it possible for scofflaws to commit offences, not pay fines, and continue to operate vehicles and renew any

number of vehicle permits as long as it isn't the permit on the vehicle that the offence was committed in. That warrants more thorough consideration.

Minister, one of the real problems around highway safety is the paucity of police officers on our highways, especially our 400 series highways. Speed rates

have increased well beyond the 100-kilometres-per-hour speed limit. There are members in this Legislature who have personal experience with that. The norm for speed rates on 400 series highways has

become 120 kilometres an hour or 130 kilometres an hour. Those highways are more crowded than ever, and yet there is a scarcity of police cruisers on those highways. In fact, when there are police

cruisers on the highways, the difficulty and the dangerousness for a police cruiser to pull a vehicle over prevents that police officer -- OPP in these instances -- from actually performing their

duties. If the government is really concerned and serious about highway safety, the government is going to commit itself and ensure that it puts more OPP officers on our 400 series highways and on

those highways that are policed by the OPP.

As well, communities like the ones I represent, like the ones represented by every member in this Legislature, are seeing fewer and fewer police cruisers out

on the road because of the incredible demands on those communities and the incredible downloading that this government persists in engaging in that has resulted in real reductions in policing

efforts and policing activity in those communities.

Do you want to really be tough on people who would attempt to pass stopped school buses? A decal on the back telling them it's against the law, I suggest to

you, with all due respect, although the effort is admirable, is not really the most effective way of doing it. The most effective way of doing it is ensuring there is a likelihood of apprehension,

that there's a likelihood of detection, and that means giving communities those resources, giving them the funding so they can adequately staff police forces so that the police officers and

cruisers can be out there on our community roadways enforcing the act. The likelihood of detection, as you know, is the greatest single deterrent to offences under the Highway Traffic Act and other

roadway and vehicle legislation.

I say to you that the legislation clearly has to go to committee. I put to you that the government should be calling upon the federal government to call upon

automobile manufacturers to create safer vehicles, vehicles which have more flexibility in terms of seat design and seat belt design to actually accommodate younger passengers so that we don't

become involved in this very difficult process of a gradation of booster seats for the kids four, five, six, 10, 11, 12 through to adulthood.

VISITORS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to alert the House that students from Port Dover

Composite School are in the gallery, including my niece Sandi Milner. So you've been warned.

DEFERRED VOTES

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have a deferred vote on government order number 3.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1409 to 1414.

The Speaker: Ms Di Cocco has moved government order number 3. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the

Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 80; the nays are 4.

The Speaker: Let it therefore be resolved that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the reappointment of Ann

Cavoukian as Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on July 1, 2004, as provided in

section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO

1990, cF31.

And, that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

Be it resolved that the motion do now pass.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. This morning your Minister of Education said that he knew that 44

schools slated to close before he announced the moratorium last December would not be saved. He went on to say that he now admitted that some boards ignored his request to hold off on school

closures and as many as 100 schools could be closed between now and next June.

How is it that your government, that made a very distinct campaign promise to have a moratorium on all school closures, doesn't have the commitment to

implement legislation to make sure that, as you promised, not a single school closes in the province of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister would like to speak to this.

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The Leader of the Opposition knows not of what he speaks. We have had a 97% compliance with the

request.

We understand the problem they're having opposite. They have no idea how to work with school boards. They're used to throwing down lightning bolts, throwing

boulders at the school boards that are out there. Under their watch, a record number of public schools were closed and a record number of private schools were opened.

We asked for a moratorium on all closings going forward, and virtually all have; there are two school boards we are in discussions with. We don't mind doing

business that way. We don't mind talking to school boards, showing them some respect. I can tell you that we're going to get the results where they count: Students in this province will be better

off. The boards know that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Could I have some quiet, please.

Supplementary?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): This is a new low for integrity in government. You've broken election promises, but this commitment was made

after the election, after you were the government. On December 12, 2003, you, as Minister of Education, announced a commitment to a moratorium on school closings in Ontario until after June 2004.

Now, we have the announcement that 44 schools are to close by the end of June and another 66 by the end of June next year. That's 110 schools to close, despite your moratorium. Why has your

government even failed to keep a commitment made to the people of Ontario after you were elected?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I can understand why the people on the other side of the House still want to think that maybe the election didn't happen. But

do you know what? It did.

There are some numbers being published out there, but most of those are by boards --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could you allow the minister to respond, please? I hear shouting from both sides as soon as another member gets up to speak.

The Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Kennedy: I can understand the member opposite having contributed greatly to the shutting down of schools prematurely and unnecessarily.

He is dealing, in fact, with numbers published from guidelines that predate our new government. What he is talking about, I guess, is what would have happened if they had stayed in power. But

boards across this province know there are new guidelines coming and new funding rules coming. Luckily for students around this province, the future he's talking about has been headed off by the

people through the last election.

Mr Flaherty: I was fortunate, at our party's education round table, that my new best friend Annie Kidder was there, and she provided this

information about school closings. It's good to have this accurate information.

We had the moratorium from the minister in December, but now in May, he says, "I knew they weren't going to keep all these schools open." That's what he says

today. He says he knew schools slated to close before he announced the moratorium last December would not be saved. So he knew when he said it that it was not accurate. Even worse than that, he

says he's going to work with school boards but then says today that school boards ignored his request to hold off on school closures.

Minister, this is the worst kind of promise-breaking. You made a commitment to the people of Ontario for a moratorium that you knew was not true when you said

it. Apologize to the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Here's what I knew when we made the commitment: Education in this province had suffered for eight long years from the

simplistic approach that was just exhibited by the member opposite. In fact, some schools that are being closed are getting new schools built to replace them. There are cases in which communities

have agreed to have these schools built. But I will tell you, Speaker, that if the member opposite was reading accurately from his sheet, he would be including schools that were under review under

the Tories. Those schools and those children have a better future under this McGuinty government.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. On your way into caucus this morning, you refused to answer this

question of the media, despite the fact that it was asked you several times: Was it a mistake for you to sign the taxpayer protection pledge? Yes or no?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What I can convey, on behalf of the people of Ontario, is that they were

sadly mistaken if they thought they could rely on the previous government when it came to the state of the government's finances -- sadly mistaken in that regard. The real issue is, do we even

intend to do something to address that predicament, where you can actually go into an election and hide a $5.6-billion deficit from the people of Ontario? Yes, we intend to address that.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Taxpayers have become so cynical about politicians and election promises that they have actually taken to

getting politicians to personally sign election commitments so that there's no doubt, so that there's no manoeuvring. With great fanfare, during the last election, surrounded by your candidates

seeking election, you signed the taxpayers' protection pledge. The media, cameramen, photographers were all there to record the moment.

I have a simple and straightforward question for you: Will you stand in your place and confirm, yes or no, whether you will keep your promise to the Ontario

Taxpayers Federation and to working families in Ontario? Premier, would you do that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me express my commitment to working families. Our commitment to health care and education is unequivocal and irrevocable.

We will do what is necessary to improve the quality of public services in the province of Ontario. We'll start with smaller classes; we'll start with student achievement; we'll start with shorter

waiting times; we'll start with more doctors and more nurses.

Mr Baird: Premier, what the people of Ontario want to know about your commitment is the commitment you have to your word and to the promises

you made when you were trolling for votes during the last election campaign. You and your government are a breeding ground for cynicism for politicians and for politics. You say one thing to get

elected, and then you change your mind after election day. We're going to see voting levels go down because of your personal promise-breaking. That's the honest-to-God truth. You have lost all

credibility with taxpayers in Ontario. You've lost all credibility with the people who are required to work with government. If you can't keep --

The Speaker: Premier.

Mr Baird: I have not finished my question.

The Speaker: You take a long time giving speeches.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I think the member is finished, Speaker. I think voters made that decision.

Will we bring the same style of fiscal management that was brought by the previous government? Will we hide a $5.6-billion deficit? Will we borrow $21 billion

to give tax cuts that we couldn't afford? Will we compromise public services like health care and education? What we intend to do is to act on the mandate we've been given by the people of Ontario.

We will fix their schools and improve their health care.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. As you'll know, this is Education Week. Just four and a half months

ago, in December, your Minister of Education announced a moratorium on further school closures until September 2004. Reasonable people were led to believe that no schools would close this spring,

yet People for Education revealed today that 44 schools are in fact going to close in a couple of weeks. What happened to your moratorium on school closures? Why are you breaking your promise to

the thousands of children whose schools will now close?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the minister.

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The member opposite may wish to improve on the record of both the Leader of the Opposition and

some of his caucus. He may wish to read what he has in front of him, which says that a certain number of schools have been reviewed that may close, or have been under review for closure. What that

means is that under those members' government there was a review done that had no regard for whether a school was a quality school for students, had no regard for whether it was useful for the

community, and had no regard as to whether it had economic benefit to our rural areas. That, I can tell you, is going to change. That will render the numbers in front of the member opposite quite

meaningless.

Mr Hampton: I checked the dictionary just a few minutes ago, and "moratorium" doesn't mean that some schools will close; it means that no

schools will close. When you made that promise, we asked you, "Where is the money so that these schools will have budgets and can remain open?" Dr Rozanski gave you a blueprint of what needs to be

done to maintain these schools, but you haven't followed it.

So again, the question for the Premier is: Why did you, on the one hand, promise that no schools would close, why did you lead reasonable people to believe

that no schools would close, and then fail to provide the money so that those very schools would have a budget and could remain open?

Hon Mr Kennedy: We've had a demonstration as to why the member opposite is still leading the dinosaur party that has nothing to say about a

future here.

We said clearly when we made the announcement that where there was consensus in the community, those school closures could still go ahead. If new schools are

being built, if the community agrees, those would happen. But let's be clear. This member opposite voted to support private schools in this House, in this Legislature. Luckily for the children of

this province, he's not the leader of a school board out there. They're waiting for the appropriate time to hear about the funding and the new guidelines that will make a considerable difference in

keeping good schools open in this province so that children can do well, which is our priority.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): We now learn that "moratorium," under the Liberals, doesn't mean what it says in the dictionary.

Back to the Premier. Premier, my question is about your other case of amnesia. Ten short months ago, when the Cortellucci companies were contributing hundreds

of thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, you condemned and vilified their activities. You used to use words like "conflict of interest" and "special deal" to describe the financial and

political relationship between the Cortellucci companies and the Conservatives.

Now we learn that the Cortellucci companies have given $122,000 to the Liberal Party, and yet you have nothing to say. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to

criticize the $100,000 donations to the Conservative Party and say nothing when they give $100,000 to you?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Speaker: The member used language that is clearly

unparliamentary.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Would the member withdraw the unparliamentary word.

Mr Hampton: If I said something unparliamentary, I withdraw.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member will know that when we criticized contributions to the

previous government, we did so because we felt that there was undue influence being exercised by the donor. If the member --

Interjections.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Terrible day.

The Speaker: Order. It is a terrible day, unless we settle down and have responses and questions.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I can hear the bulldozers at the Oak Ridges moraine now.

The Speaker: Order. I can hear you when you should not be speaking, at a time when the Premier should be speaking.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can say that we received a fair amount of criticism from the developers in Ontario because of our greenbelt legislation,

because of the changes we made to the Planning Act, and in particular because of our cancellation of the Adams mine proposal. So I can say that it is true that we have received a fair amount of

criticism from developers in Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Developers seem to be very happy with what happened at the Oak Ridges moraine. They got 95% of what they wanted and the people of

Ontario were told, "Too bad, so sad."

Even the member for Windsor West accused Mr Cortellucci of cronyism, of preferential treatment. And you, Premier, accused the Conservatives of "looking after

those that brung ya to the dance." When did you begin your dance with the Cortelluccis? Is that all it takes to change your principles -- $100,000?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can say that I first learned of these contributions yesterday. If the member opposite is insinuating that somehow we put

together a sweetheart deal with any developer in the province of Ontario, then I'd ask him to table that so that we might all consider it.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in your new Ontario I'd like to get a sense from you

of how you would make this decision: You're driving along and there are three children on the side of the road who are your next-door neighbours. You know them well. It's a driving blizzard. You

pick up one child because you've got one booster seat and you leave the others in the blizzard. Is that your vision of Ontario, or would you break your law that you've just passed because you can't

take them into the car? Answer the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Could I ask the members --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would appreciate a bit more co-operation from both sides so we can get through question period and maybe the rest of the

day. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I think the honourable member from Oak Ridges has too much time on his hands and is

obviously looking for some media attention. I'm not really going to get into answering his question that way.

Let me tell you what the intent of the legislation is. This legislation is intended to save children's lives, and that's what we intend to do. That's why we

are proposing that the Highway Traffic Act be amended and that booster seats be made mandatory for children who weigh between 18 kilograms and 36 kilograms.

Mr Klees: Actually it was a very serious question to the Minister of Transportation. He's creating a very practical problem for people across

this province. He hasn't thought this through. Premier, your minister hasn't thought it through. I'm going to ask him one more question that I also don't think he'll have an answer for.

My constituent in Oak Ridges, a hard-working single mother who has three children of the age you're discussing here requiring this new booster seat: How much

will this cost her?

Hon Mr Takhar: Let me first say that this initiative is being supported by health care professionals and safety organizations. The average

cost of this seat starts around $40. It's a worthwhile investment in safety.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. Order. Could I ask the minister to come to order, please.

Interjection: Which minister?

The Speaker: The minister who is speaking continuously.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. It is very timely to ask this question, as today the

people of west Hamilton were again faced with a horrendous traffic jam. More and more people are enduring the frustration of commuting in and out of Hamilton to the GTA.

I have another minor frustration today. Because of this House, I missed the opportunity to introduce my son and his classmates from Hillfield-Strathallan

College, who were occupying both the east and west galleries today. They were here at our request, so we'll say hello to them in their absence.

However, Minister, with the growth and prosperity in Hamilton and the GTA has come a growing population. What new measures has your ministry taken to combat

congestion along our major corridors?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Our government realizes, and our Premier has said this several times, that time spent on

the roads is time that people are away from their families. We take this issue very seriously.

We are considering all the latest technologies on our highways. Currently we are testing, in a pilot program on the QEW and Royal Windsor Drive, a sign that

will tell us how much time it will take from one destination to another destination. My colleague from Oakville has told me that it's working. We plan to take similar initiatives everywhere else so

we can address some of these issues.

Ms Marsales: I have personally found those boards, particularly the one at Ford Drive, very helpful in commuting back and forth to Hamilton.

The time-sensitive opportunity gauges the distance and allows people to settle down while they are commuting.

Are there any other strategies that the government may use to improve traffic flow along these busy highways?

Hon Mr Takhar: I already talked about one of the pilot projects we are carrying out, and it looks like it's going to be very successful.

Let me talk about a few other things, maybe about the high-tech system which we know as the Compass system. It improves safety, optimizes highway capacity and

provides a better level of service to motorists without adding more traffic lanes. That's the kind of technology that helps people go from one place to another and also helps us to manage the

congestion on the highways. We will continue to look at the latest traffic technologies so that we can address some of these issues.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. Your government has proven adept at increasing taxes -- the largest single

increase in the history of Ontario, $4.1 billion -- adept at new spending, in excess of $3 billion in six months or so in government. But you know that your government has to look at the spending

side and has to control spending if you are going to keep your promise to the people of Ontario to balance the budget. You yourself, Premier, have said, "I'm asking our public sector partners to be

reasonable and responsible at the bargaining table." Those are your words. And in your Minister of Finance's Economic Outlook, he says, "The second element of our work plan is restraint. There must

be restraint in the broader public sector."

These are serious matters if you are going to keep your promise to balance the budget in Ontario. Yet in the first negotiations, which are with the community

college teachers, we see a settlement of in excess of 8%; 4% per annum over two years.

My question is, what is your plan for the second element of your work plan, which is restraint?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Finance will speak to this.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): My friend from Whitby-Ajax, who served admirably as a finance minister in this province, knows that in

the preparation of a budget, restraint and management of expenses is always a key element and a very important theme.

I think we have taken steps that have gone well beyond what any previous government has in Ontario, and it's not just in the consultations that preceded the

hard work but in examining every single expenditure in government, to review all the areas where we spend, on behalf of taxpayers, their money for their programs and, I think, when he attends this

Legislature on May 18, the rewards of the work we have done over the course of the past six months.

Mr Flaherty: That's the problem: There is no plan. You know that roughly 75% of provincial operating expenditures go for human resources. I

think the people of Ontario -- the nurses of Ontario, the physiotherapists, the people who work in our hospitals as lab technicians and so on -- ought to have some idea from you about how you

intend to exercise restraint.

Four per cent for the community college teachers; we hear from some of the hospital CEOs now that they're being told 1% or 1.5%. Is that your plan for the

public sector workers in Ontario, or do you intend to have wage increases that are at the 4% or 5% level, which you know will result in your not being able to balance the budget and the need for

the same process we saw from 1990 to 1993 with the NDP, leading to a social contract and wage controls?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I hope my free-market friend from Whitby-Ajax is not joining with Terence Corcoran in calling for wage and price controls in

Ontario, but you never know with this gang.

I want to say to him that we will exercise a very high degree of restraint. We will, for example, get out of the business of partisan advertising. There will

be no million-dollar expenditure to market the budget after it's presented. We are going to get out of the business of wasting money, millions and millions of dollars on outside consultants.

As far as the working women and men in the broader public sector, I simply say to you that all of them have the benefit of collective bargaining, all of them

have the benefit of the labour laws that act as a context for wage negotiations and they will be able to take advantage of that context when it comes time to negotiate a new contract.

TENANTS

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As you are aware, the city of

Mississauga is one of the fastest-growing cities in both Ontario and Canada. According to StatsCan census results, the growth and expansion of Mississauga has created a city where approximately 30%

of its dwellings are rental units. With a large number of the 55,000 rental dwellings located within my riding of Mississauga East, the so-called Tenant Protection Act has become one of the primary

issues that my constituency office handles on a daily basis. Could the minister please explain to this Legislature what he is doing to change the current legislation, which does not protect tenants

but instead allows landlords to increase rental rates astronomically?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I would like to indicate to the member, as I

indicated on April 20, that we will be introducing legislation in the House before the end of June whereby the automatic 2% rent increase that landlords are normally able to charge for a following

year -- in other words, that would start in January 2005 -- will not go into effect this year. That's so the consultation process we are currently involved in with both landlords and tenants can

carry on without the underlying threat of an increase at the same time.

We will, however, allow landlords to use the rent control index so that any additional expenses they have incurred can be charged by way of additional rent in

2005, as they have in prior years.

Mr Fonseca: Thank you, Minister, for your informative response. It's my understanding that your ministry will be organizing this ongoing

consultation period until June 15 in order to incorporate the views and input of all stakeholders into any decision that will be made. At this point, the town hall meeting for Mississauga will take

place on June 15. Is there any other formal way my constituents can get involved, to voice their opinions directly to the ministry prior to this meeting?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: It is a very good question. Over the next month and a half there will be 10 consultation processes going on all across the

province, in 10 different communities. We want to hear from both landlords and tenants, as we already have in Kitchener last week, and later on this week in Scarborough. These consultation

processes will take place throughout the entire province. There are other ways as well for tenants and landlords to express their views, by getting on to the Web site of the ministry and there is a

questionnaire they can answer there. They can also get involved at various stakeholder meetings that will take place across the province as well. We are interested in getting a viable rental

housing market in Ontario that both landlords and tenants can benefit from by balanced tenant protection legislation.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Premier, and this is another question about McGuinty math: Premier, you promised

Ontario drivers a 10% to 20% reduction in their car insurance premiums, but that is not happening. Your promise of a 10% to 20% reduction in car insurance rates is becoming virtually everywhere a

20% or greater increase. In the latest example, when Mr Milazzo of Hamilton received his insurance renewal form from Western Assurance, what did he see? A 30% increase in his car insurance rates.

Premier, using your best McGuinty math, can you tell Mr Milazzo how your promise of a 20% reduction became a 30% increase for him?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Finance.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party has the luxury of picking examples out of the air to build a case that

simply has no justification based on the merits of what has happened. I want to tell my friend from Kenora-Rainy River that, as of April 15, 55% of the industry have submitted new rates that

represent a 10% reduction in the rates that were in existence when we were called upon to govern on October 21. It's the very first thing we moved on. The balance of the industry will report very

soon. I want to tell my friend from Kenora-Rainy River that when our work on auto insurance is complete, we will have lower rates, a more competitive system and a system that delivers real benefits

when individual drivers suffer automobile accidents.

Mr Hampton: Premier, that attempt at an explanation doesn't help Mr Milazzo at all. He believed your promise. He believed that when he got his

insurance renewal, he was going to see a reduction. He hasn't had any accidents. He hasn't had any claims. He hasn't had any tickets. He's still driving the same car he drove last year and the year

before that and the year before that. You keep telling people, "You're going to get an insurance rate reduction." I still haven't heard the explanation. How did your promise of a 20% reduction turn

into a 30% increase for Mr Milazzo and thousands of other drivers across the province?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am sure that Mr Milazzo, when he is in a renewal cycle with a company that has filed its new rates, will, like the 8 million

other drivers in this province, start to benefit from the first series of reductions in auto insurance rates over the course of the past eight and a half years. But we're not done yet. The second

phase of our reforms is going to give drivers the opportunity to design an insurance package that relates directly to their needs. We will have a more competitive market. I assert that, by the time

we're done, we'll see rates that are some 20% lower than those which we inherited when we were called upon to govern.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You know that thousands of citizens in Durham and surrounding area

have signed a petition that will be presented in the House today, calling on you to extend the 407 east to 35/115. You'd also know that this has been an issue that has been in stop-and-go mode for

over 20 years. Actually, Roger Anderson, the chair of Durham region, described 407 as the missing link in the regional road network. My question is to you, not just on behalf of Durham region but

the surrounding communities. As you know, there's a broader benefit to the east extension of the 407. What do you propose to do about it?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): First of all, I would like to thank the member for the question. I had the opportunity to

meet with the representatives from the Durham-Peterborough region this morning. I think they're in the House, and I want to welcome them here. I actually had made the announcement about this in the

House before the comment. We are absolutely committed to moving ahead with this project.

Let me just give you a little bit of history about this project, so that everybody is clear. From 1989 to 1990, the route planning of this highway was done.

The EA was done, but was never filed with the Ministry of the Environment. If that had been done, by now we would be in the design and construction phase of this project. From 1994 to 2001, there

was absolutely nothing done on this project. The member is right, that this project has been in the --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Maybe in the supplementary you can get that in.

Mr O'Toole: I do want to acknowledge in the gallery today the people who put a face to how important this issue is in my riding: The chair of

Durham region, Roger Anderson; the mayor of Clarington, John Mutton; councillor Jack Doris from the city of Peterborough; Dave Nelson, the warden of the county of Peterborough; and Bob Malcolmson,

the CEO and general manager of the chamber of commerce. They know how important it is. The issue here is, do you know?

It isn't a political question. It is, what is your commitment to the region of Durham, to making this issue go ahead? I have thousands of petitions here that

are the voice of Durham. I'm presenting them to you, not for more excuses, but a commitment here today on what you're going to do for the east completion of the 407 highway. I'm finished listening

to the constituents. What are you going to do?

Hon Mr Takhar: It's really interesting, because this is exactly the response I gave to him in the meeting. He was trying to make it a

political issue. I said, "This is not a political issue. This is about the economic development of the community. It's about the prosperity of the community." We're going to move ahead with this

project. We are in the middle of developing the terms of reference for the EA. That is going to --

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): We've already had that done.

Hon Mr Takhar: If you knew that, you would have done something. It's not done. You just make promises; you don't do anything.

FAMILY FARMS

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, last Friday I was pleased to make an announcement on

your behalf. I announced your ministry's program exempting family farms from land transfer tax at the farm of Dave and Joan Dorland in my riding of Northumberland.

There are over 1,100 farms in Northumberland county, providing over 2,200 jobs. In 2001, this brought in an estimated $247 million to our local economy. We

produce everything from beef and dairy to apples and oilseeds, and our products end up on grocery store shelves and dinner tables across Ontario.

Minister, as you know, 98% of farms in Ontario are family owned, and many families are worried about the sustainability of their farms for future generations.

What impact will this announcement have on family farms in Ontario?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm pleased to answer the question from the member for Northumberland. I think any member

who represents a rural riding should be very pleased with this announcement of real, positive change for rural farms.

What this is going to do is encourage participation of a new generation of farmers in this province, and that's what we need to do. We need to ensure that we

have a very smooth family-to-family succession of farmers. This rebate is going to apply to anywhere from 0.5% to 2% of the sale price of a farm. That can be substantial. These are dollars that a

young farmer can use to reinvest into his or her operation. This is going to help farmers plan for the future. This is good news for rural Ontario, but I think more importantly, this is good news

for the future of agriculture in this province.

Mr Rinaldi: Minister, family farms are the heart and soul of rural communities like those in the city of Quinte West and in Northumberland

county. Quite simply, family farming is a tradition in my riding.

Our farmers are also creative and have generated a significant agri-tourism industry. Visitors come each year to travel along the apple route, enjoy the

scenery, and pick their own apples to take home. The Rural Ramble farm tour has also been a huge hit with tourists.

More than half of Northumberland county is classified as agricultural, and half of that is classified in the top category of land in Canada. This is a

significant statistic when you realize that only one half of 1% of land in Canada is classified as class 1. But there are many pressures facing family farms. Minister, what else are you doing to

ensure that Northumberland and Ontario family farms remain sustainable?

Hon Mr Peters: I thank the member for his interest in agriculture. Every one of us should take that interest on a daily basis. Be conscious

when you go into that grocery store and buy an Ontario product, because that's the way that every one of us can reinvest in this province.

We are continuing to work. We've signed the agricultural policy framework with the federal government to bring some long-term stability to the industry. We're

working with the Ministry of Finance right now to address assessment issues. We know there are a number of assessment issues that have arisen in the rural areas. We're dealing with that. We've

developed the mature animal cull program to help develop new slaughter capacity for this province. We're working with the tender fruit industry in increasing our surveillance of the plum pox virus,

as well as assisting the tender fruit growers in trying to put new investments in to replant those trees. We need the support of all members to continue to invest in agriculture, because this is

the engine that feeds the rest of us in this province.

FISH HATCHERIES

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As I'm sure you're well aware, your ministry releases in

excess of 10 million fish annually throughout 1,200 waterways in Ontario. Fishing provides millions of recreational hours annually, as well as millions of dollars as an economic stimulus to the

province. Thousands of tourists regularly visit our great waters. Yesterday's article, as a matter of fact, spoke about the resurgence of Atlantic salmon throughout Ontario. As I'm sure you're well

aware, my job now is to watch over the MNR on behalf of the public at large, and concerns are being brought to my attention that your ministry is currently reviewing the hatcheries and the hatchery

program in Ontario and possibly getting out of hatcheries. Minister, what is your commitment to Ontario's hatcheries?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate the question from my colleague and my critic. You're right, that is your job.

Like you, I really do support angling in Ontario. Not only is it one of the greatest recreational pursuits you can have in this province, but it's a tremendous contributor to our economy right

across the province. We believe in a sustainable fishery, and hatcheries play a

part in that. As you know, over the years the trend has been to make sure we protect and preserve our habitat so that

we get natural reproduction of fish. That is the way to go. Obviously we are still in the hatchery business and will continue to be so.

Mr Ouellette: Minister, that's very good news for the people who are so dependent on the hatchery system. One of the other components within

the ministry is its partners and partner hatcheries through the CFIP program. These individuals all work in conjunction with the ministry, making sure they follow the guidelines and releasing the

number of fish they catch along with clippings etc. What is the ministry's commitment to CFIP hatcheries in the province?

Hon David Ramsay: We are looking at all the possibilities in the various programs we have in improving our fishery. We are reviewing all of

that now. As you know, in your job when you were there, when I'm here now, we're looking to see how we can make this work better in the province. As I said to you before, the health of the fish

stock in this province is extremely important, both for health reasons, to encourage that recreational activity, but also as a tremendous economic boost to this province. We will make sure from

this government that our fish industry is sustainable in this province.

EDUCATION

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Education. I had the pleasure of attending the Premier's announcement on

Thursday, April 22, in which he reaffirmed the Liberal government's commitment to excellence and quality education. As former vice-chair of York region's character council, I was pleased that the

announcement took place at York region's character community council conference. York region's character community council and character community councils across the province engage community

leaders to encourage youth to make them productive members of their respective communities. Minister, my question is, how will the Ministry of Education ensure that Ontario's students develop their

intellectual, emotional and physical potential?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I want to commend the member opposite, not just for the interest expressed in the question but

also for the work he did for the character council. York region's done a lot of work to bring out citizenship values and recognize that schools aren't just for the learning of academics.

To his question: We want to develop the intellectual, physical and emotional needs of children and youth. We do that by having very express goals for those

things. We want to make sure there is phys ed on a regular basis. We want to make sure that music and the arts have a place in our schools. We want to set a new line in terms of a 12-year-old in

this province, to make sure that that's there, that we really focus our attention to make sure they have a high level of literacy, numeracy and comprehension, because it's only on that foundation

that the rest of the opportunities can happen in their education experience and really be built for the rest of their lives.

Mr Wong: Minister, it is crucial that we give our children the best education we possibly can. You and I know that children are the future of

Ontario. Parents, teachers and students in my riding of Markham want to know that we are taking the appropriate steps to improve literacy and numeracy standards. What is the government doing to

improve literacy and numeracy so that Ontario can compete nationally and globally and so that our workforce is the best in the world?

Hon Mr Kennedy: We have in fact put together a made-in-Ontario strategy that draws on the best around the world. These changes will start to

take place in Ontario schools almost immediately. We are putting together, for example, lead teachers -- two for literacy and numeracy in each school. That means four lead teachers as of this fall

in all 4,000 elementary schools.

We will also have, for the first time, support available for teachers to help them focus on literacy and numeracy by making the curriculum more accepting in

terms of where they need to focus -- a literacy hour every day and math time in each instructional day, because we understand that within our system is the chance for these individuals to have

their own choices to go forward. As well, we're making sure they don't get lost in the crowd. The earliest years are how we're going to make sure we reach our goal by 12, and that means smaller

class sizes, beginning this September.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Health: On March 30, you told us that a decision around the Niagara ambulance dispatch

was going to be forthcoming shortly -- in fact, that it would be made within the timeline, your word, of the April 30 deadline that you set. We believed you. We did; we took you at your word. We

counted on what you had to say, yet all we got was a request for another extension. Why couldn't you keep the promise you made on March 30?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The Welland whirlwind is at it again. What's all this about? It's about 30

days. This government is taking responsibility for an issue that that party, when they were in government, talked about but couldn't get done. I'm working very hard to align all that's necessary to

make this announcement that's important to the people of Niagara region.

I think it's incumbent upon all members to read all the signals that are available. The member for Welland and the member for Erie-Lincoln both know that this

issue is in hand, that we're working toward a resolution that will be satisfactory to the people of Niagara region. And when it's done, it will be as a result of the hard work and labour of this

government fulfilling a commitment that's been made, rather than that party, when they were in government, just talking the talk.

Mr Kormos: It's not about 30 days; it's about the months and years that people in Niagara have waited for this to happen. It's about the lives

that have been lost. It's about the lives of the people in Niagara, who continue to be at risk because of your failure to act on work that had already been completed.

It ain't rocket science, Minister. You told us that we could count on you to make an announcement before April 30. We took you at your word. It's clear we

can't count on you when you say you're going to do something. When are you going to keep your commitment to announce Niagara's ambulance dispatch service and save some lives instead of putting them

at risk?

Hon Mr Smitherman: As a result of the hard work of the members for Niagara Falls, St Catharines and Stoney Creek, we've been working very hard

for the resolution that the people of Niagara region desire.

The member, in his question, talks about "years and years." The reality is that we have been a government for but six short months, and in that time we have

made it a priority to deliver on this important commitment for the people of Niagara region. No sign of a lack of confidence has been shown by the member for St Catharines. No sign of a lack of

confidence on the issue has been shown by the member for Niagara Falls. No sign of a lack of confidence on this issue has been shown by the member for Stoney Creek. But that member and that member,

interested in playing politics and inflaming tensions in their region, have been stirring the pot.

It will be this government that delivers on the commitment for the Niagara land ambulance. When that day comes, the people of Niagara will know that this is a

government that walks the talk, because we're going to deliver on this commitment.

TOBACCO GROWERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Agriculture: This morning Canada's agriculture minister announced $71 million

for tobacco compensation. Our previous government committed to follow the federal lead on tobacco compensation. When will you cut your government's promised cheque to the tobacco community?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant well knows, it's not for me to speculate on any

issues that are of a budgetary nature.

But I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the federal government on their announcement today. Let me be perfectly clear: We take the health care

needs of Ontarians very seriously. We have made a commitment that we are going to have an aggressive smoking cessation strategy in this province. It's a commitment that I know my colleague the

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is working on. I know it's a commitment that the Premier's extremely concerned about. That's a commitment that we're going to follow through on.

Mr Barrett: I also thank the federal government for finally committing dollars to tobacco transition funding. That's what I'm talking about.

Our government knew how important it was to get money into the hands of farmers immediately. In the days of our administration, we quickly announced this money well before the federal dollars were

released. Now things are reversed. Tobacco farmers have already had to wait too long, Minister. Can they not count on you to get your share of the transition money to them immediately?

Hon Mr Peters: The member can stand up and pat the previous government on the back all he wants, but I just wanted to demonstrate and let it

be known that we are committed to the farmers of this province. We've been there for the farmers and we'll continue to be there for the farmers.

The Premier announced $64 million in transition funding for the farmers of this province. The Premier announced a $10-million plan to help develop new capacity

in this province. We are working with the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council right now on the development of dealing with the wedge transition dollars. We've worked with the Ontario Federation

of Agriculture to ensure that we have a smooth succession of family-to-family farms. Again, I say to the member opposite, I'm not going to speculate on any issues and any initiatives that will be

or may be contained down the road.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I think I speak for all members of the House when I say how concerned we are about the problems surrounding

rising insurance costs. I must say I was quite troubled by the case raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party a few minutes ago. I realize that the Minister of Finance has had a few minutes

to look into the case, and I was wondering if he had any more information about this case and how it reflects the issue of rising insurance costs.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): We have looked into the matter, and I want to offer my friend from Kenora-Rainy River the opportunity

to apologize to this House. He knows full well that the reforms we brought in are leading to rate reductions as of April 15. He raised the matter of a Hamilton resident, and he alleges that those

rates went up by some 30%. Well, we've looked into the matter, and indeed that was the case, and the renewal notice was dated January 15 of this year.

The fact is that the member from Kenora-Rainy River has an obligation at least to do a minimum amount of research before he alleges in this House that we have

not kept the promises that we made.

Mr Milloy: I know that the current efforts by the government are just the first phase of our plan to provide real relief in terms of auto

insurance. I wonder if the minister could outline to the House what efforts will be happening next in this fight to provide affordable auto rates to insurers in Ontario.

Hon Mr Sorbara: The first thing we're going to do is pay far less attention to the allegations brought to this House by the member from

Kenora-Rainy River and the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Phase one is done and we anticipate the balance of the companies reporting, and when all of the companies have reported, we'll have, on average, rates that are

10% lower. The next phase of reforms involves redesigning and eliminating some of the administrative burdens that get in the way of the speedy resolution of claims. We are also designing a system

where individual policyholders can custom-design their insurance policy so they're buying only the insurance they need. Finally, we're taking steps to create a much more competitive market because,

in the end, vibrant competition among insurance companies is the single best way to ensure that we have the best possible product in the entire country.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to present a huge petition that has been gathered by Bert Werry, who is from my riding of Durham.

I'm presenting it on behalf of thousands of people, not just in Durham, but the city of Kawartha Lakes, Peterborough and Peterborough county. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products is critical to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by improving our highway network and by

improvements to public transportation;

"Whereas the construction of Highway 407 eastward into Durham region, across Clarington to Highways 35/115 would improve the flow of traffic in Durham region

and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas citizens and municipalities of Durham region faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are entitled to

a timely resolution of this matter;

"Whereas the Clarington agricultural advisory committee, CAAC, has expressed concern and advocates for final construction completion of Highway 407 through

Clarington, connecting to 35/115;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the province of Ontario take all necessary steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward into the regional municipality of Durham and that

this commitment include the extension of Highway 407 through Clarington to connect with Highway 35/115, while ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessments and public consultations are

followed."

With your pleasure, I present this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Addressed to the Ontario Legislature:

"Because the minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 since 1995 despite increases in the cost of living; and

"Because a full-time worker earning the current minimum wage in a large city is $5,904 below the poverty line, and to reach the poverty line would need an

hourly wage of at least $10; and

"Because the minimum wage should provide people with an adequate standard of living;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the minimum wage to at least the poverty line -- that means $10 an hour -- and index it to the cost

of living."

I affix my signature to that.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have another petition, which will cause another outburst by Conservative members. I think they should be

warned ahead of time not to get excited. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas former Premier Mike Harris has received $18,000 in consulting fees from Ontario Hydro;

"Whereas he did this consulting work less than one year after he resigned his position as Premier of Ontario;

"Whereas this contract is just another example of the Conservative country club created by the previous government at Ontario Hydro and Ontario Power

Generation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to order former Premier Mike Harris to pay back the taxpayers of Ontario by returning the

consultation fee he received from Ontario Hydro."

Mr Speaker, I will present this to you.

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): As we've heard here today in the House of another promise broken, people are still concerned that

other promises may be broken out there. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas every day, 1.5 million Ontarians, including seniors, health care workers and students, purchase a basic meal that costs less than $4; and

"Whereas a new 8% tax on such meals will disadvantage low-income Ontarians; and

"Whereas adding a tax for the first time on a glass of milk, a salad, a bowl of soup or a cup of coffee will affect a total of 1.5 million Ontarians each and

every day in restaurants and cafeterias across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Do not impose a new 8% tax on basic meals under $4."

I've also signed it.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products are crucial to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by improvements to our highway networks and by

improving public transportation;

"Whereas the construction of Highway 407 eastward into the Durham region, across Clarington to Highways 35/115, would improve the flow of traffic in Durham

region and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas citizens and municipalities of Durham region have faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are

entitled to a timely resolution to this matter;

"Whereas the Clarington agricultural advisory committee, CAAC, has expressed concerns and advocates for final construction completion of Highway 407 through

Clarington connecting 35/115;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Parliament of Ontario take steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward into the regional municipality of Durham, and that this

commitment include the extension of Highway 407 through Clarington to connect with Highway 35/115, while ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessment and public consultations are

followed."

I will sign this petition.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This is a petition that brings it up to over 10,000 now.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas seniors and other qualified patients require the continued provision of physiotherapy services through

schedule 5 clinics to promote recovery from

medical conditions and continued mobility and good health;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The patients of

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics request the continued support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for provision of OHIP-covered

physiotherapy treatment to qualified seniors and others in need of these vital health care procedures."

This has my signature in support as well.

HOSPITALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition from the citizens of Windsor and Essex county.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of our community must have adequate locally available health care services; and

"Whereas mounting threats to the overall health of our residents arise in the form of viral threats, environmental degradation, and from potentially as yet

unknown sources; and

"Whereas local hospitals have been eliminating highly trained and experienced RPNs from their traditional jobs and replacing them with RNs, thereby upsetting

long-standing work team relationships that have greatly benefited our community; and

"Whereas local hospitals have been operating short-staffed far too often, and thereby putting patient care at risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Therefore,

be it resolved that all local community hospitals cease all deficit-driven reductions in front-line worker hours and all deficit-driven experiments

in workplace reorganization and that they restore and strengthen staff and work teams.

"Be it also resolved that local community hospitals set up consultative bodies with the hospital unions and the labour movement to restore health and morale to

the hospital sector."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of seniors from Stevensville, Ontario, like Margaret Riley and

Beverley and Thomas Mounsey, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

In support, my signature.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the most vulnerable individuals in our society deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; and

"Whereas the previous government ignored the poor in order to pay for irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy; and

"Whereas barriers need to be removed in order to ensure full participation for Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a cost-of-living increase to the ODSP program as soon as possible and to

legislate changes that will ensure Ontarians with disabilities can participate fully in a stronger Ontario."

I agree with the petition and I'm signing my name to it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows, to the province of Ontario:

"That Ontario Works was slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increases to the cost of living, that cut is worth nearly 40% today;

"That Ontario disability support program benefits have been frozen since 1993; and because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet

their cost of living;

"That the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights;

"That the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs of

living;

"Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House urge the Ontario government to immediately increase social assistance rates to

reflect the true cost of living. This means shelter allowances that are based on the average local rents as calculated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, a basic needs allowance that is based

on the nutritional food baskets prepared by local health units as well as the calculations for the costs of household operation, household furnishings and equipment, clothing, transportation and

health care as reported in Statistics Canada's Average Household Expenditures."

This is signed by hundreds of people, and I affix my signature thereto as well.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products is critical to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by improvements to our highway network and by

improved public transportation;

"Whereas the construction of Highway 407 eastward into Durham region, across Clarington to highway 35/115, would improve the flow of traffic in Durham region

and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas citizens and municipalities of Durham region have faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are

entitled to a timely resolution of this matter;

"Whereas the Clarington agricultural advisory committee, CCAC, has expressed concerns and advocates for final construction completion of Highway 407 through

Clarington, connecting to 35/115;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Parliament of Ontario take steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward into the regional municipality of Durham and that this

commitment include the extension of Highway 407 through Clarington to connect with highway 35/115, while ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessments and public consultations are

followed."

As I agree with the petition, I'll sign it accordingly.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and are

now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors, and to maintain the present Ontario drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medication."

I've signed my name to that as well.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to present to the Ontario Legislative Assembly on behalf of some members of the Peel

Multicultural Council. It says:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their county of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

TAXATION

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm pleased to present a petition from the constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every day, 1.5 million Ontarians, including seniors, health care workers and students, purchase a basic meal that costs less than $4; and

"Whereas a new 8% tax on such meals will disadvantage low-income Ontarians; and

"Whereas adding a tax for the first time on a glass of milk, a salad, a bowl of soup or a cup of coffee will affect a total of 1.5 million Ontarians each and

every day in restaurants and cafeterias across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Do not impose a new 8% tax on basic meals under $4."

I affix my signature to this.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Beaches-East York.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That's only twice today.

This is to the Ontario Legislature and reads as follows:

"Because social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increase in the cost of living, that cut is worth about 34.4% today; and

"Because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet their cost of living; and

"Because the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights; and

"Because the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs

of living;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the shelter portion of Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program benefits to the average

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp rent levels and index social assistance to the cost of living."

I'm in agreement and sign my name thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

Mr Gerretsen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Planning Act / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Gerretsen.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Good afternoon, everyone, those of us who

are assembled here in the House, and thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 26.

We all know that this is a time for real, positive change in Ontario and in Ontario's communities. Our proposed legislation sets the foundation for that

change. The proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2003 aims to strengthen our municipalities and create healthy and prosperous communities by changing the Planning Act, revising the

implementation standard for the provincial policy statement, which is the government's statement of its land use planning priorities, and reforming the appeal process to the Ontario Municipal

Board.

Before going any further, I just want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the members for Prince Edward-Hastings, Etobicoke North and

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Very generous of you.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Yes it is very generous.

As you're aware, the Planning Act establishes the rules for land use planning in the province and describes how land uses may be controlled and who may control

them. On December 15 last year, this government took decisive action toward planning reform with the introduction of Bill 26, the proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act.

Bill 26 includes measures that would, if passed, (1) give municipalities more time to review and approve development applications; (2) prevent appeals to the

Ontario Municipal Board of urban expansions opposed by municipal governments; (3) require that planning decisions be consistent with the provincial policy statement, a much stronger test than the

current "have regard to" standard put in place by the previous government; and (4) give the province the power to confirm, vary and rescind a decision made by the OMB where a matter of provincial

interest may be adversely affected.

The bill proposes to make changes to the Planning Act that would improve the land use planning system by making rules more clear and consistent, ensuring the

process is more accountable and transparent and giving the public more of a voice. The provincial policy statement is currently being reviewed as part of the required five-year review of the

statement under the Planning Act. I might indicate that we're starting that process well ahead of its time and there will be full consultation with respect to the provincial policy statement some

time this summer.

The purpose is to determine if the provincial policy statement policies need to be revised based on their ability to address emerging issues that are of

provincial interest, including eliminating gridlock, preventing sprawl, preserving green space and protecting the environment. This is to ensure that provincial land use planning policies are

promoting well-planned growth that supports a strong economy, strong communities and a healthy environment. It's all about a strong economy and strong communities.

The Ontario Municipal Board is an independent adjudicative tribunal that makes decisions at arm's length from the government and has all the powers of a court

of record. The procedures and makeup of the Ontario Municipal Board are governed by its own legislation, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, which is administered by the Ministry of the Attorney

General. The majority of matters that come before the OMB relate to appeals of planning applications under the Planning Act.

Bill 26 is only the first part of a comprehensive overhaul of the OMB, one of our government's top priorities. This government, the McGuinty government, is

committed to providing Ontarians with safe, clean, livable communities. The proposed changes to the land use planning system support this commitment. This would be a positive step for Ontario's

communities.

A strong land use planning system would, first, support strong communities by giving people the opportunity to participate in deciding how their communities

grow and prosper; second, enhance sustainable growth through a check on urban sprawl, gridlock and a loss of valuable agricultural lands; third, ensure sustainable development by changing the

implementation standard to be consistent with provincial policies that the government and the public feel are critical for good planning; and fourth, protect the environment by allowing development

only in areas where it can be sustained.

Ontario's municipalities agree with this move. They have let us know that they are generally in support of the direction the government is proposing to take by

Bill 26. We are hearing from the people who live in Ontario's communities, and they are letting us know their concerns. Ontarians have let us know their concerns for clean air and water, for

communities that are safe and for cities and towns that work for the people who live in them.

There have been concerns raised by the municipal sector, the general public and the media that local planning autonomy and the integrity of the local planning

process have been compromised where the OMB has issued decisions which overturn decisions of elected councils. Municipalities and other stakeholders have asked that the role of the OMB as an

adjudicator of appeals under the Planning Act be reviewed.

Environmental groups have concerns about how the proposed planning reforms protect heritage resources and our environment. Development groups have concerns

about how the proposed changes will affect the development sector and our economy as a whole. The resource sector has concerns about how the proposed "shall be consistent with" standard will affect

the resource sector.

We are taking notice of all these concerns and we will continue discussions with our stakeholders and the public on how best to address them. This government

is interested in hearing the many perspectives and ideas that will help guide us in developing a better land use planning system in Ontario.

Currently, our proposed changes to land use planning address high priority concerns, but we're not stopping here. There will be further reviews of the Planning

Act, and there will be more fundamental reforms proposed to the planning system. These reforms, as contained in Bill 26, if passed, would bring in fundamental change to land use planning in

Ontario. We're also working with our communities on providing them with additional tools to help deliver the services that Ontarians expect, and provide an environment that is safe, clean and

healthy for the people who live, work and play in our communities.

This government has made real, positive change in the provincial-municipal working relationship, one that values input from each side and draws support from

the people who are served by these two orders of government. Over the last eight years, Ontario's municipalities have faced many challenges: uncontrolled development, unwarranted gridlock,

endangered heritage and water resources, loss of green space and unhealthy air. This has clearly had a negative effect on our environment and has also hurt our economy. If passed, the Strong

Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2003, would give Ontarians a real voice in the way our communities grow and prosper, bring back local accountability and transparency to land use planning and

ensure that important provincial land use policies are clearly spelled out, so that vital provincial interests are protected for the benefit of all Ontarians. This government recognizes that

Ontario's municipalities need a new deal that will restore to them the ability to plan, manage and invest in the future. We are committed to building safe and strong, livable communities and

providing communities with the tools to develop and sustain them.

Recently, I met with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. As a matter of fact, I've met with them on a number of occasions. AMO, as you know, is the

voice of municipalities and has been key in keeping governments abreast of municipal concerns. AMO's recommendations have also proven valuable in the implementation of government initiatives.

I delivered to them the message that Premier McGuinty has asked to begin a dialogue that will lead to a new partnership between Ontario and its municipalities.

Our government has committed to enshrining the memorandum of understanding with AMO in proposed legislation. This would, if passed, be an unprecedented step in provincial-municipal relationships.

We will use this opportunity for closer co-operation on issues that affect Ontario's municipalities.

The AMO planning task force has met with the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to discuss ideas and perspectives on Bill 26 and the

planning appeal process. AMO mentioned that it is encouraged by the direction of proposed Bill 26. It also made recommendations on a number of further positive changes, specifically as relates to

complete applications and the Ontario Municipal Board, among others. The government values these recommendations. These views are welcome and can only benefit all of Ontario.

If passed, our reforms to the planning system would support, and be supported by, a number of initiatives being moved forward by this government. It also

includes the proposed Greenbelt Protection Act, 2003, which was given second reading just last week; the growth management strategy, under the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal; source

water protection and waste management, under the Ministry of the Environment; and the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority and other transportation strategies, under the Ministry of

Transportation. All these actions support our commitment for well-planned, managed growth leading to safe, clean, livable communities.

As mentioned, the proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, if passed, would be only the first step toward possibly more fundamental reforms to the

planning system. From the feedback we're getting from our stakeholders, we will identify the need for other changes. We are also looking, as I mentioned before, at enhancing the provincial policy

statement -- the province's policies on land use planning. Through the review process, we will ensure there is clear direction for land use planning decision-makers, including the OMB. We will

ensure that the policies address concerns that are important to the people of Ontario, such as eliminating gridlock, protecting the environment, preserving green space and heritage resources and

containing urban sprawl.

The proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act would, if passed, be the key to reforming land use planning in Ontario. We can simply no longer allow

uncontrolled development in Ontario. We need reforms to land use planning that will give our municipalities the tools to grow smart and give our communities the ability to grow strong. Ultimately,

the strength of Ontario will be measured by the strength of its communities.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It's my pleasure to speak to Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2003. I

commend Mr Gerretsen for bringing this forward.

I feel I'm somewhat dating myself when I confess that I went to university during the 1960s, which was the flower child era. I will admit that I was never a

flower child. But at that time, university students, by and large, were setting out to try to save the world. I was in engineering, and we were trying to pave the world. I now realize that we were

wrong. I was trained, not educated; I'm now somewhat educated, I hope, and realize the importance of planning, because I have never seen a building, a house or a highway constructed, and then, at

some stage, it being returned back to nature or to farmland. So whatever we do is going to have a permanent effect on our communities and our province. I think all of us can cite examples that

distress us personally when we see some of the best farmland in Ontario that has gone underneath asphalt in previous years. It has a profound effect on our way of life.

Some 30 or 40 years ago, we believed that the amount of safe, clean drinking water in Ontario was endless. There was no need to protect drinking water; we were

always going to have it. We weren't concerned about traffic volumes. I think back to when I was in elementary school, and again, that dates me; I think Canada had a population of about 15 million

at that time. People have been busy since then, and it has increased considerably.

We have to do some planning. I drive rural roads, and I see houses growing here and there. I know how expensive those houses are to service, and I know it's

tempting for municipalities to sometimes grant every building permit because it brings in tax revenue, but it may not be good planning and it may have a very unfavourable effect to the municipality

trying to service those houses. We're also increasingly seeing that there is a high level of discomfort between new rural houses and the traditional farms that operate in the area, and if we're

going to do planning for farms as we are doing with the Nutrient Management Act, then we need to look at the entire picture. This particular bill goes a long way in doing that.

I look at the main objectives of Bill 26. Increasing timelines for reviewing specific planning applications: There was a gentleman, now gone, who was a hero to

me, and the expression he used most often was, "We need to make haste slowly." Everyone who is going to be affected by a planning decision needs to have the opportunity for input, whether it is to

support it, oppose it or simply make changes. In the busy world we live in, it is not a simple matter to gather all of the information to make a sound decision. If I go back to what I said at the

beginning, the decision, once made, is essentially irrevocable. Once a subdivision is built, it is there. I very strongly support this proposal that will allow additional time so that we make the

right decision. Very seldom does a decision have to be made immediately. The proponent for a particular parcel, or the opponent, may believe that they need an answer tonight. But we don't need a

fast answer, folks; we need the right answer, and this is a step in the right direction.

Eliminate an applicant's right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for alterations to urban settlement areas not supported by municipal councils: One

thing I really appreciate about the Dalton McGuinty government is that we don't have enemies in Ontario any more. We're working together. Municipal councils are not better or worse than us; they're

partners. The federal government is a partner. Citizens are partners.

Municipalities consist of people who have stood for election, laid out their platform, and I guess we do the same. We bump into people in the grocery store or

whatever on a regular basis, and they give us advice. But in many ways the best government is local government. We've got councillors who interact regularly with the community, and they have a

strong sense. There's no councillor who wants to make the wrong decision. There's no councillor who enjoys doing something that is bad for the community. It's quite the opposite. This amendment

will recognize the knowledge base that exists within municipal councils, and good for it. With the partnership arrangement that we're seeing, we benefit not just from the advice of the individual

citizens; we now benefit from the advice of municipalities. The minister has talked about meeting with AMO. There's a great group that can effectively and collectively represent literally hundreds

of municipalities' voices to the minister. I compliment him on that. That's a very good move.

Changing the implementation standards so that decisions on planning matters are consistent with provincial policy statements that are issued under the Planning

Act: This one begs the question, why did this amendment have to come? Because previously it said that the OMB would have to have "regard to." What does "regard to" mean? "Regard to" says we have to

look at it, but we don't have to act on it. This amendment says that what the OMB is doing has to conform to all of the rest of provincial government policy. That's a given. It is intriguing that

this government had to make that change, that that was not in the act. Of course there has to be a consistency; otherwise it's just absolutely futile for people to devote energy to changes. Do

people want to change in one area if it's countered or ignored by another area in planning? So that's an excellent move in that part.

Providing the province with the authority to confirm, vary or rescind a decision regarding official planning/zoning matters made by the Ontario Municipal Board

in cases where a matter of provincial interest may be adversely affected: I think this recognizes, in a very strong sense, that we believe the OMB will continue to have a role -- not the same role

as now, and the minister has referred to that -- but it also recognizes that in contrast to MPPs, the OMB are appointed members. They've not had to stand for election. It would be difficult to ask

anyone on the street in your community, "Who's the OMB member? Who's going to hear this case?" Yet people know their MPP and are very free to share with us their information and their advice. As we

knock on doors -- and each of us can testify to the number of e-mails and letters we get each day -- the public is very comfortable sharing with us what their advice is on an issue, in contrast to

the OMB. This returns an element of democracy to a process where the provincial government has the authority to make a decision that reflects what our province wants and what our community

wants.

There's also a need for consistency across Ontario. The OMB may make a decision in one area, but we as a Legislature have the opportunity to say, "There's a

precedent in this that could adversely affect this area or that area." So the provincial government has granted a role in there of ensuring consistency across the province. I think that's good for

us, I think it's good for municipalities and I think it's good for developers.

Nowhere do I read in this any sense that we don't want development. Quite the contrary: Our government strongly supports development, but we want good

developm